Software currently available in the iOS App Store that does not comply with Apple's newly enforced in-app subscription rules, such as the Amazon Kindle or Hulu+ applications, have until June 30 to comply or they could be removed.

According to Digital Daily, publishers were sent a memo earlier this year to let them know they must offer content or subscriptions for purchase within their App Store application, providing Apple with a 30 percent cut. Apple has claimed that the rule has always existed, but is now being enforced, which led to the rejection of Sony's eBookstore.

"For existing apps already in the App Store, we are providing a grace period to bring your app into compliance with this guideline," the letter to publishers from Apple reads. "To ensure your app remains on the App Store, please submit an update that uses the In App Purchase API for purchasing content, by June 30, 2011."

That means applications like Amazon Kindle, Hulu+, and Netflix now have less than four months to add an in-app purchasing option to their App Store software. And for those content providers, Apple will take a 30 percent cut of all sales made within the application.

AppleInsider reached out to Amazon on Tuesday for comment, but has not received a response.

Apple on Tuesday officially unveiled its new App Store subscription service for iOS devices. It allows publishers of content-based applications to charge recurring fees to customers.

But Apple also said that software may not include links to external websites to purchase content or subscriptions. Publishers will, however, be able to sell digital subscriptions on their websites, or provide free access to existing subscribers. Apple would not be involved in that exchange and would not take a cut, but publishers would be required to provide their own authentication process inside the iOS software.

But if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of their iOS application, the same subscription must be made available at the same price or less to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app.

"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app," Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said in a statement.

Before it was even formally announced, Apple's subscription offering for iOS drew the ire of some content providers, who feel that Apple's 30 percent cut of transactions is unreasonable. Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported on Tuesday that major publishers like Time Inc. are unlikely to flock to the iPad's new subscription offering, and instead are more likely to work with other platforms like Google Android.

I like that Apple's not letting anyone be above their rules. This is the only fair way to do it. Have the same rules for Amazon as you do a small start up. The app store has been a haven for the little guy developer and this will keep the playing field as even as possible.

Does anyone know which apps are affected? Based on this phrasing: "...or provide free access to existing subscribers", it sounds like magazines that offer an app that can download the magazine if you are already receiving the paper version are okay. For example, is the Economist affected? Would Skype be affected? I am pretty sure the The Daily is affected. Anyone know what actually is affected?

I find the "newly" enforced "rule" to be nothing more than a money grab by AAPL. Vendors such as Netflix and Amazon have helped to build the App Store ecosystem that has pushed the sale of Apple products. Now that the Store has gained widespread popularity, Apple wants a bigger bite of the income. This enforced "change" does virtually nothing for the customer except to either increase prices or the availability of existing and new apps.

I like that Apple's not letting anyone be above their rules. This is the only fair way to do it. Have the same rules for Amazon as you do a small start up. The app store has been a haven for the little guy developer and this will keep the playing field as even as possible.

LMAO. Tell that to the whining "Not fair" people in the previous thread about this. Poor Amazon! Poor Netflix! Poor Hulu!!!

Meanwhile WONDERFUL developers, who I gladly support, are soaring with wonderful opportunities in iOS.

People, you can still buy from a vendor's website. Nothing changes. If you wish to give your credit card info to ShadyApps, go for it. I'm sticking with iTunes/Apple to guard my credit card info. If they can't, then why would ShadyApps be able to?

I find the "newly" enforced "rule" to be nothing more than a money grab by AAPL. Vendors such as Netflix and Amazon have helped to build the App Store ecosystem that has pushed the sale of Apple products. Now that the Store has gained widespread popularity, Apple wants a bigger bite of the income. This enforced "change" does virtually nothing for the customer except to either increase prices or the availability of existing and new apps.

It doesn't? Like another post states, it puts amazon, netflix, etc on the same playing field as Joe's App Shop. Apple manages the transaction, users know that only one place has their credit card, etc. Plus, think of it this way. Users who don't have a credit card can now use iTunes gift cards for these in app purchases. It is streamlining the entire process, which, in the end, will benefit all companies involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy

more like Uncle Sam is going to start asking for data like they did with Microsoft back in the day

For what, exactly? They are not preventing anything that is happening now. They are saying that in addition to the methods you currently employ outside the app, you must also include an in app option.

I find the "newly" enforced "rule" to be nothing more than a money grab by AAPL. Vendors such as Netflix and Amazon have helped to build the App Store ecosystem that has pushed the sale of Apple products. Now that the Store has gained widespread popularity, Apple wants a bigger bite of the income. This enforced "change" does virtually nothing for the customer except to either increase prices or the availability of existing and new apps.

Put it in perspective: Amazon pays $0.00 to distribute their apps to millions of iOS customers, because the apps are marked as "free" in the App Store, per Apple's rules, which was originally to avoid penalizing companies which didn't make money off their apps. That's Apple being fair. But Amazon does make money off their app, just not directly. Apple is basically saying, you guys are taking advantage of us, and we get it. So it stops now.

And don't get something completely different into comparison. Credit cards companies make billions of people with their twisted system. They are not selling anything, they are not providing any kind of storage of data, they simply link accounts across the world.

It doesn't? Like another post states, it puts amazon, netflix, etc on the same playing field as Joe's App Shop. Apple manages the transaction, users know that only one place has their credit card, etc. Plus, think of it this way. Users who don't have a credit card can now use iTunes gift cards for these in app purchases. It is streamlining the entire process, which, in the end, will benefit all companies involved.

For what, exactly? They are not preventing anything that is happening now. They are saying that in addition to the methods you currently employ outside the app, you must also include an in app option.

like microsoft never did anything to prevent you from buying Netscape Navigator for $50 and installing it, they just provided a free web browser and a free web server. or like when they visited one of the earliest startups who had a digital tv guide back in the late 1990's and ripped off the idea for windows 98.

the iTunes business earns a pretty good profit for apple. now it's no more we just sell the hardware and this service is really a not for profit value add. now apple wants to use the itunes store to keep competitors off their devices

i can understand doing this for extra levels or weapons in a game, but books? the reason for the app store was a value add for the iphone and iTouch. when the original iphone was announced i thought it was overpriced crap. why would i pay $600 just to surf the internet outside?

Exactly. This is problematic because it penalizes content publishers/distributors all around. Since Amazon will be required to offer the same or better offer for books within the App store, it means they will either have to take a loss or increase the price of ALL kindle books sold. This will impact already negotiated contracts between Amazon (distributor) and the book publishers.

I think it makes more sense to say if Apple isn't acting as the distributor (for example if they aren't directly involved in delivering the content or negotiating with the publishers directly) then a lower 3% commission is charged. This would maintain the 30% subscription model for games, magazines and iBooks where Apple is acting as the distributor/commerce solution, however cloud based content services such as Neflix and Amazon Kindle, which up to now have been device-agnostic, would fall under the lower commission category.

like microsoft never did anything to prevent you from buying Netscape Navigator for $50 and installing it, they just provided a free web browser and a free web server. or like when they visited one of the earliest startups who had a digital tv guide back in the late 1990's and ripped off the idea for windows 98.

the iTunes business earns a pretty good profit for apple. now it's no more we just sell the hardware and this service is really a not for profit value add. now apple wants to use the itunes store to keep competitors off their devices

i can understand doing this for extra levels or weapons in a game, but books? the reason for the app store was a value add for the iphone and iTouch. when the original iphone was announced i thought it was overpriced crap. why would i pay $600 just to surf the internet outside?

MS never stopped you from installing any app you wanted. This is not even remotely the same. IE came bundled, and they actively paid or provided incentives to not have other browsers preinstalled. Apple is talking about apps the individual chooses to put on their device. So, I ask again, what legal ground does the government have to get involved here? The closest would be anti-competitive, but that would only come into play if Apple said you can ONLY offer subscriptions through the app, which they are not.

As far as visiting a digital tv guide, how does that pertain to this topic?

No, but Apple told Amazon that you cannot offer the same app for less on Android.
(At the moment this is only for content but extending this to apps is no-brainer.)

Wow, where did you get that? They did not. They only said that any subscription offer you offer outside the app must be also offered in the app. That is it. So if the offer is "pay for 10 months get 2 free" on their website, that offer must be offered in the app.

Wow, where did you get that? They did not. They only said that any subscription offer you offer outside the app must be also offered in the app. That is it. So if the offer is "pay for 10 months get 2 free" on their website, that offer must be offered in the app.

No, they did not yet say this. But how far is it from saying a subscription offer outside of iOS must be matched inside iOS to saying the same for whole apps? Not very far, just one press release away.

MS never stopped you from installing any app you wanted. This is not even remotely the same. IE came bundled, and they actively paid or provided incentives to not have other browsers preinstalled. Apple is talking about apps the individual chooses to put on their device. So, I ask again, what legal ground does the government have to get involved here? The closest would be anti-competitive, but that would only come into play if Apple said you can ONLY offer subscriptions through the app, which they are not.

As far as visiting a digital tv guide, how does that pertain to this topic?

anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market

personally i think any government action will go no where like it did with Microsoft and technological advances will solve the problem in a few years. i remember in 2000 everyone was scared of microsoft. now with the mobile revolution they are just another tech company

No, they did not yet say this. But how far is it from saying a subscription offer outside of iOS must be matched inside iOS to saying the same for whole apps? Not very far, just one press release away.

It isn't the same at all. They are saying subscribing to the same content must be matched. Not "you can't have Angry Birds free on Android supported by ads and charge iOS users $0.99 for an ad free version"

The fallout of this policy will likely determine what my next phone is. It was probably going to be the iPhone 5, but we'll see what happens.

after almost 2 years with the 3GS i was thinking about getting the cheapest android i could find that has access to the market. later this year AT&T should have OK ones for free with 2 year contract.

i like my 3GS but i don't seem to care as much about games as i thought i would 2 years ago. and i don't use the phone that much to make me too cheap to buy another one for $300.

i need another laptop and the iPad2 was on this year's shopping list. i thought about making a deal with my wife where i use the iPad for my commute and just get a cheapo android phone for myself. most of the popular apps are on both platforms and the iPad will do things that the android tablets won't so i won't lose anything

anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market

Baloney. Apple's bookstore is excluded RIGHT NOW from the Kindle. Is Amazon being prosecuted for that? Answer: NO!

This is no different. Apple gets to set the rules for publishing on their device.

Doesn't this mean Amazon just has to remove in-app purchasing completely? They can still do it entirely via their website just as long as the app itself doesn't load the website. The Kindle app just becomes a way to view your already purchased Kindle books. Do Netflix and Hulu even allow you to purchase subscriptions from within the app? (I'm not in the US.)

the kindle is a single use device with a pre-paid bandwidth built into the price. it's like saying that comcast service is excluded from time warner cable boxes

idevices are the equivalent to general purpose computers since they can run applications. and the kindle app was fine the way it was for the last year or so until Apple decided to get into the ebook business

No, but Apple told Amazon that you cannot offer the same app for less on Android.
(At the moment this is only for content but extending this to apps is no-brainer.)

You forget the other important factor to make it an antitrust issue, monopolistic power. Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile phone market, does not have a monopoly on smartphone market, does not have a monopoly on ebook publishing market, and does not have a monopoly on ebook reader market.

On the other hand, if Apple said to Sony, do what we ask on your ebook reader or we kick all your music out of iTune, then it would become an antitrust issue.

Man, I love Apple. But this seems like a bone head idea. What's keeping these giants (Kindle Store, Hulu) from pulling their apps altogether and only making them available on Android and Win 7 deices? Then, I, as a consumer, would have to choose where to go....and Android would be my first bet. This is where the "closed" system starts to effect the consumer. until now, hasn't bothered me...but if I lose functionality out of my phone because of this...so long, Apple. I'll take my business elsewhere.

anti-trust law says you can't use power in one market to muscle your way into another market. apple is using their market power in the mobile hardware/app store to exclude competitors in the e-book market

personally i think any government action will go no where like it did with Microsoft and technological advances will solve the problem in a few years. i remember in 2000 everyone was scared of microsoft. now with the mobile revolution they are just another tech company

Antitrust law only comes into play for companies with a MONOPOLY on the market. Apple's hardware, while popular, is hardly creating a monopoly in the mobile hardware/app store market. Heck, there are people predicting the demise of iOS ecosystem everday.

Your argument will be more relevant when iPhone has more than 70% marketshare.

Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.

I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.

Man, I love Apple. But this seems like a bone head idea. What's keeping these giants (Kindle Store, Hulu) from pulling their apps altogether and only making them available on Android and Win 7 deices? Then, I, as a consumer, would have to choose where to go....and Android would be my first bet. This is where the "closed" system starts to effect the consumer. until now, hasn't bothered me...but if I lose functionality out of my phone because of this...so long, Apple. I'll take my business elsewhere.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Looking at the iPad alone, it hit 15 million devices nine months after it was released - and that was pushing them out the door as fast as they could be manufactured! They'll AT LEAST double that this year, maybe triple it. That makes 45 to 60 million potential customers for a market that's in its infancy.

And that doesn't count all the iPhones and iPod Touch's that are out there.

Oh, and regarding your threat to take your business elsewhere; as an old girlfriend of mine once said, don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out....

Ok, now before we get all bent out of shape over this, let's consider the example of the Amazon App. It allows you to purchase things in-app, or you can go to the Amazon website and purchase there. However, the "in-app" option does not go through Apple, and as far as I know, Apple gets no cut. Does this meet the requirements? It seems to me that it does.

I don't read this as Apple requiring that the in-app purchase be an in-app purchase that goes through the app store and Apple gets a cut of. Just that the app has an interface to purchase things without leaving the app. Apple offers the in-app purchases for developers who don't have the resources to host their own servers to handle in-app purchases, but it isn't REQUIRED, is it? The Amazon app certainly doesn't use it.

Am I mistaken?

Yes, Apple is clearly referring to its own in-app purchasing/subscription service when they refer to inside the app:
"All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."